On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:18:40 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The draft got published today, so it's too late to change the
>>>> high-profile version of the spec. Rather than add this message, I'd
>>>> like to just come to some sort of conclusion on the issue. What are
>>>> the various proposals that exist to solve this problem other than
>>>> SQL, and how willing are the browser vendors to implement those
>>>> solutions?
>>>
>>> FWIW, Opera is primarily interested in implementing the APIs
>>> currently
>>> in the specification (including the SQL API). Specifying the
>>> specifics
>>> of the SQL dialect in due course would be good though, but doing
>>> that
>>> does not seem very controversial and I would assume is a requirement
>>> for going to Last Call.
>>
>> I am puzzled that you feel that specifying the semantics for the SQL
>> dialect would be straightforward. We have no experience of using more
>> than a single database implementation for WebStorage.
>
> That's pretty much why it would be straightforward.
>
>
>> Its kind of interesting that the WG is attempting to standardize that
>> which has no more than a single implementation.
>
> Most things in the W3C get standardised (to LC or CR) before they have
> even one. Having one at all is generally considered a bonus. :-)
That does simplify things for me and should help the proposal I am to
make tomorrow.